I'm going to say it again, but in a different way -- if the CTIA is successful in acquiring most of what is currently OTA broadcasting spectrum so they can SELL that air space to people and (I assume) force everyone who has a standard ATSC TV to buy some sort of NEW converter (and a contract) to watch the equivalent of what is currently OTA, well, I don't think it matters HOW MUCH CLOUT they have in Congress or with the FCC... Can anyone say "Boston Tea Party," or "Whisky Rebellion?"

There are easily enough OTA-only viewers in America to cause so much outrage over such a move it could be more than just political unrest, and if the majority in Congress isn't smart enough to see that, they're a a lot less intelligent than I thought even the stupid ones had to be to get elected. (That quote from Olympia Snowe simply blew me away with how how little she seems to realize the implications!)
Jeff

Since antennas can broadcast as well as receive, how many irate people with obsolete OTA setups and white noise generators would it take to make a wasteland of the spectrum?

Since antennas can broadcast as well as receive, how many irate people with obsolete OTA setups and white noise generators would it take to make a wasteland of the spectrum?

I do not fear any government that would imprison its citizens for expressing their freedoms. However, this would be the wrong approach for reasons to many to list here. Swing you fists as was done recently in Mass. with your votes and get the people that would use the FCC, FDA, EPA and the Attorney General's Office in a manner that is counter to the best interests of ALL people out of power.

The Constitution gives only three branches any power to do anything (and that is severely restricted). If the people would understand that. all these little kingdoms are truely powerless.

Congress passed the laws giving these kingdoms their power. Occasionally they will pass a law to correct their actions (or compel action not taken). It takes two branches to pass the laws that the FCC and other agencies follow, with the third branch called in when there is a dispute.

All the little "fiefdoms" of which some of you are speaking, such as the FCC, FDA, FAA, etc., are technically all departments of one branch -- the Executive, though authorized by laws and bills passed by the Legislative branch, which usually required a signature by the head of the Executive (the President).

Frankly, a government as big as our federal government couldn't operate any other way, and all these big federal departments are necessary. The problem is that some of them have been given too much authority, and/or spread far too thin, and/or allowed to go far afield of their original mandates and begin serving the very interests they're supposed to be regulating, controlling or policing -- sometimes due to Congress changing laws due to the influence of industry lobbyists -- sometimes due to a simple lack of oversight...

At any rate, it's pretty easy to see this sort of thing at play in at least the FCC, FAA and FDA during the past 20 years, or so. The FAA has even admitted, in the past, of doing cost-benefit analyses (or recognizing the justification of various airlines doing them) to determine whether it was worth doing various safety upgrades or increasing the frequency of various maintenance routines, or of topping off fuel tanks, rather than flying with "just enough" fuel to get to a destination (since more fuel costs more to carry -- a few planes have crashed when bad weather or navigation -- or a faulty fuel sensor -- caused the plane to run out of fuel before it could land). Airlines have even assessed a "value per human life," as to how much they expected to have to pay out in insurance claims, which came out when the oxygen tanks being carried in the flight that went down in the Florida everglades a number of years back caught fire and caused the plane to crash (I think the figure at that time was $900,000 per life).

For the most part, none of these things usually gets addressed until after the fact, when there's major public outrage. I think the NAB jumping on this plan to sell off most of the UHF broadcasting spectrum before it could be done is one of the few exceptions... BUT I think that's still looming over everyone's head from here on out, and the chances are unless someone gets Congress to pass a strong law against it, it will come to pass, eventually.
Jeff

BUT I think that's still looming over everyone's head from here on out, and the chances are unless someone gets Congress to pass a strong law against it, it will come to pass, eventually.
Jeff

Without doing the research, I believe the law requiring broadcast TV to leave the 700MHz band as of a changed date last year is a restriction. It doesn't give broadcasters priority or permission to use the remaining 50 channels. In other words, it appears that it is up to the FCC as to how they assign usage within television's band. It can be all TV or no TV. (The restriction simply prohibits full power broadcasters from transmitting in analog or in the 700MHz channel range.)

What needs to be found, or written if it isn't there, is a mandate from congress to assign TV channels. There are some special cases (such as the "every state must have a commercial VHF channel") but something clear that says the FCC "shall" assign channels to licensees for TV use would be an easy fix and protection against the next spectrum grab. ("Shall" means must.)

If that "shall assign channels" language is law (or is added) it would require the FCC to give each broadcaster a channel ... not a portion of a shared channel but a channel. With bandwidth assigned as channels the FCC would have to completely rework the band and change channel sizes if they wanted to shrink broadcaster's space. I'm not sure that is technically possible.

Find the "shall" language, make sure it is channel based or get congress to write it in.

What needs to be found, or written if it isn't there, is a mandate from congress to assign TV channels. There are some special cases (such as the "every state must have a commercial VHF channel") but something clear that says the FCC "shall" assign channels to licensees for TV use would be an easy fix and protection against the next spectrum grab. ("Shall" means must.)

That might very well help but what is really is needed is a law that states that the primary purpose of channels 21 through 51 (exclusive of 37) shall be over the air television broadcasts.

The NAB commercial part of this is airing on serveral local channels in my area!

Have to disagree that the VHF maximum should be increased to 316 kW ERP. IMHO it should recognized by the FCC that every full service VHF ATSC station needs a minimum of 20 kW ERP along with one or more low power UHF fill-in translators or a minimum of least 50 kW ERP. Also low VHF channels 2 through 6 should only be assigned to any digital TV station (including low power) as a last resort when absolutely nothing else is available.

The reason I said VHF needs more power because in the Ozarks are High VHF's don't work sometimes!!! These have a power level anywhere from 4.05 kW, 26 kW, 28.2 kW, and 55 kW!!!! On channels 13, 10, 8, and 12!!!!

Certain Vehicles going up and down the street makes it pixilate and lose sound until it passes!!!!

Lightning, FM Interference, flipping on and off a light switch, pulling a ceiling fan chain, and electrical devices with motors all does the same thing!!!

Read the Springfield-Joplin, MO HDTV Forum and you will see all are complaints about VHF!!!!

We all have the right antenna's and it still don't work!!!!

In the USA! Minimum of 63.2 kW, 20% of the former analog High VHF 316 kW Max! and Maximum of 160 kW!!! This might help a little?

What would solve all these problems, move all VHF TV Band 2-13 to unused frequencies in the UHF TV Band 14-36 and 38-51!!!

The reason I said VHF needs more power because in the Ozarks are High VHF's don't work sometimes!!! These have a power level anywhere from 4.05 kW, 26 kW, 28.2 kW, and 55 kW!!!! On channels 13, 10, 8, and 12!!!!

Certain Vehicles going up and down the street makes it pixilate and lose sound until it passes!!!!

Lightning, FM Interference, flipping on and off a light switch, pulling a ceiling fan chain, and electrical devices with motors all does the same thing!!!!

Read the Springfield-Joplin, MO HDTV Forum and you will see all are complaints about VHF!!!!

We all have the right antenna's and it still don't work!!!!

Minimum of 100 kW and Maximum of 316 kW!!! Would be nice!!! But most likely not going to happen!

What would solve all these problems, move all VHF TV Band 2-13 to unused frequencies in the UHF TV Band 14-51!!!

There is no guaranty that any amount of power will prevent that pixilation resulting from vehicles, lighting, etc. with digital VHF. The current maximum of 160 kW for high VHF is more than enough anywhere in the country and as I already stated low VHF should only be used for digital television as an absolutely last resort. A 100 kW minimum might work in the Ozarks but it would cause way too much interference here in Zone 1 (current VHF high maximum is usually 30kW without special permission for more) and places like Florida and the Gulf Coast.

There is no guaranty that any amount of power will prevent that pixilation resulting from vehicles, lighting, etc. with digital VHF. The current maximum of 160 kW for high VHF is more than enough anywhere in the country and as I already stated low VHF should only be used for digital television as an absolutely last resort. A 100 kW minimum might work in the Ozarks but it would cause way too much interference here in Zone 1 (current VHF high maximum is usually 30kW without special permission for more) and places like Florida and the Gulf Coast.

I agree with both of your posts!

I was just trying to think of something that might help High VHF!

Seems like no matter what ya do VHF just isn't for DTV!!!

Government and FCC, Preserve UHF 14-36 and 38-51 for TV Broadcast Spectrum!!!
____________________________________________________________ _____Local TV Reception and Dxing from Thayer, MO and The OZARKS
Everybody can view my blog that wants to!!! Check out my polls and please VOTE if you like!

Then why not sell ALL of VHF (except 88-108 Mhz) to the telecommunications industry with a caveat that the REMAINING UHF is LOCKED IN for broadcast DTV in perpetuity for as long as a need for broadcast TV remains (I agree a day will likely come when there's no longer a need for our current broadcasting technology, but I don't see it anywhere in the forseeable future)?

If the Telecoms NEED more Mhz so badly, let them buy THAT space, since seemingly EVERYONE is in agreement it's not ANY GOOD for broadcasting (or at least for receiving).
Jeff

Then why not sell ALL of VHF (except 88-108 Mhz) to the telecommunications industry with a caveat that the REMAINING UHF is LOCKED IN for broadcast DTV in perpetuity for as long as a need for broadcast TV remains (I agree a day will likely come when there's no longer a need for our current broadcasting technology, but I don't see it anywhere in the forseeable future)?

If the Telecoms NEED more Mhz so badly, let them buy THAT space, since seemingly EVERYONE is in agreement it's not ANY GOOD for broadcasting (or at least for receiving).
Jeff

How would you use VHF for mobile? Do you see how big of antenna you need for VHF especially Low-VHF? How would that work in a cell phone?

How would you use VHF for mobile? Do you see how big of antenna you need for VHF especially Low-VHF? How would that work in a cell phone?

Hey, I was just throwing a thought out there... All I'm saying is if the DTV transition made VHF essentially USELESS for TV transmission/reception, and the wireless carriers are all hellbent on getting more spectrum, then let them have THAT. And let THEM work out the antenna issues.

I think they're all the greediest bunch of crooks in the telecommunications industry, so they'd figure something out.
Jeff

All I'm saying is if the DTV transition made VHF essentially USELESS for TV transmission/reception, and the wireless carriers are all hellbent on getting more spectrum, then let them have THAT. And let THEM work out the antenna issues.

I think they're all the greediest bunch of crooks in the telecommunications industry, so they'd figure something out.
Jeff

I wouldn't say VHF is useless, just that UHF is definitely preferred for digital television. The digital TV core really should have been channels 7 through 36 and 38 through 55 so the CTIA - The Wireless Association bunch already got more than they deserve and should keep their filthy hands off the UHF TV spectrum until after a second digital transition with MPEG4 or whatever occurs in a decade or so. Then they should get the VHF channels (except what is added to FM radio) and get to share 14 through 20 with land mobile and maybe if they pay for the second digital TV transition get channels 46 through 51.

"The most attractive spectrum for wireless broadband is below 3.7 GHz; since broadcast TV bands occupy 294 MHz within that sweet-spot, they have naturally been one of the areas we are examining. For example, on average there are 20 full-power TV stations in the top 10 markets; they directly use only 120 MHz of the 294 MHz allocated to broadcast TV. Across all markets, they only directly use on average 54 MHz (9 channels) of the 294 MHz total."

Aside from the problems of antenna size, there's also the issue of auction value. The FCC is all about auctions, so they aren't going to give any spectrum away. They also want to maximize the return from the auction. Although the telecommunication carriers may be greedy (as repeated in this thread many times), they are willing to pay the big bucks for good spectrum (19 billion for 700 MHz and 14 billion for AWS at 1.71/2.11 GHz).

But it is an auction. Like any auction, the bidders decide what the value of the item (spectrum in this case) is and bid accordingly. If VHF frequencies are put up for auction, there's a good chance that the bidding will be low or even non-existent.

The Federal Communications Commission’s director of scenario planning, Phil Bellaria, claims we all misunderstood the agency’s intentions to take away TV broadcast spectrum. He’s now gone on the record saying the commission never “seriously” considered implementing such a plan. Rather, the commission was looking at “a scenario that establishes a voluntary marketplace mechanism so that broadcast TV stations have a choice in how they want to use their spectrum.”

I guess that means you can keep your spectrum. For now.

Here’s the bottom line.

According to Bellaria, stations can give up some portion of their spectrum, say 3MHz for which they could receive some compensation. However, they will then have to become part of another station’s multicast. Current rules would not permit such a station to receive “must-carry” status. However, the rules could be changed, says Bellaria.

A station could also give up all its spectrum, perhaps get more money and continue operation as a direct feed to the local cable system. However, no must-carry provisions would apply. One could assume the station might have to pay for carriage on the cable system. If not now, certainly later.

In an interview with B&C, Bellaria claims the idea is to “keep the pipeline of spectrum coming into the market to meet the needs of broadband usage over time…Certainly, the first step that we would prefer would be voluntary.” He admitted that should insufficient broadcasters participate in the voluntary stage, a mandatory element could be imposed.

In the interview, Bellaria sidestepped questions about just how long any voluntary participation might be available. “Voluntary” could be a temporary condition.

Of course, once Congress gets involved, any possibility of selling spectrum and returning a portion of those funds to broadcasters becomes extremely tenuous. Politicians are loathe to give up money without first attaching lots of strings.

"Second transition in a decade or so"? HELL NO! It better be at least another 30 years before they even consider another non-backward-compatible complete overhaul of our broadcast tv system. The end of analog was interesting and fun to see played out and the new digital system is much better than the old analog system, but it was also took a lot of money, time, and effort from both the public and broadcasters. There would be a huge public outcry if they even hint at the possibility of another round of mandatory new tv or converter box purchases anytime remotely soon!

How can we say "the digital transition is complete" when thousands of low power stations are still broadcasting in analog?LOW POWER ANALOG NEEDS TO DIE NOW!!!

Hey, I was just throwing a thought out there... All I'm saying is if the DTV transition made VHF essentially USELESS for TV transmission/reception, and the wireless carriers are all hellbent on getting more spectrum, then let them have THAT. And let THEM work out the antenna issues.

I think they're all the greediest bunch of crooks in the telecommunications industry, so they'd figure something out.
Jeff

I think they should let Ch 5 and Ch 6 be used for FM radio. That would expand FM radio from 76-108 from it's current 88-108 and since there's a nice 4 MHz gap between Ch 4 and Ch 5 there shouldn't be much interference for whatever Ch 2, 3, 4 eventually get used for.

"The most attractive spectrum for wireless broadband is below 3.7 GHz; since broadcast TV bands occupy 294 MHz within that sweet-spot, they have naturally been one of the areas we are examining. For example, on average there are 20 full-power TV stations in the top 10 markets; they directly use only 120 MHz of the 294 MHz allocated to broadcast TV. Across all markets, they only directly use on average 54 MHz (9 channels) of the 294 MHz total."

Ron

First of all the statement is B.S. because it doesn't recognize all the uses of the TV broadcast spectrum including Class A, low power and translator television, land mobile services and wireless microphones as well as future uses such as mobile / handheld TV and rural white band (broadband) use. All of the current uses have at least a partial public service aspect. Also if half the channels are taken (auctioned or not) from broadcast TV then channels 21-45 (exclusive of the reserved 37) should definitely be the spectrum kept for digital TV and yes it really will require the inconvenience and expense of a second transition.

First of all the statement is B.S. because it doesn't recognize all the uses of the TV broadcast spectrum including Class A, low power and translator television, land mobile services and wireless microphones as well as future uses such as mobile / handheld TV and rural white band (broadband) use. All of the current uses have at least a partial public service aspect. Also if half the channels are taken (auctioned or not) from broadcast TV then channels 21-45 (exclusive of the reserved 37) should definitely be the spectrum kept for digital TV and yes it really will require the inconvenience and expense of a second transition.

It would only in roughly the top 50 markets. Most of the rural and smaller markets could easily re-pack their channels into a 20 channel allocation. But like I said, ANYTHING they do would HAVE to be contingent upon the EXISTING non-TV bands (UHF 51-80) be built out to 75 percent capacity FIRST. And then the telecoms would need to do a buyout of things like ALL home shopping channels to relieve clutter. home shopping channels serve no public service.

Most of the rural and smaller markets could easily re-pack their channels into a 20 channel allocation.

Like I said any repacking that's ever done should definitely be in channels 21-45 keeping the most suitable channels for digital TV. That's only 4 more channels than a 20 channel allocation and I have no problem with those 4 channels being used for TV white space (broadband) devices in those rural and smaller markets. Why should the greedy giant wireless corporations get them (besides political bribery) rather than the public? Besides it's really consumers who are going to pay for the spectrum auctions in the form of higher broadband and cell phone bills.

Anyone else getting a funky page display with the hyperlink provided? I get a Wireless Week header, but the article is completely compacted, no more than three consecutive letters viewable on each line in Mozilla FF 3.5.7. I found I have to alt-click the hyperlink and select "Open in IE tab" for it to be viewable.

Looks fine in Google Chrome browser.

Your creed may be interesting, but your deeds are much more convincing.